Due to poor training, the TSOs at one airport tried to ruin my holiday travel plans. An attempt was made to confiscate my contact lens solution at a security checkpoint. As an exempt item, I understand that I am subject to additional screening of the items and NOT forced to surrender the items. The TSO and supervisor, however, treated me and my friend as well as other fellow travelers like criminals.

I was told my solution was explosive and a threat. As someone who flies over 100,000 miles per year on close to 100 flights, I fully understand what I am allowed and not allowed. I am aware that certain contact lens solutions contain hydrogen peroxide and will cause a positive reading when screened for bomb residue. The type I had would not have caused such a false positive. To back the claim, I have passed through BOS, JFK, EWR, LAX, SJC, SFO, DFW, ORD and countless other airports without issue.

After convincing them that my solution met proper guidelines per the TSA website, I was permitted through with the item. The supervisor suggested he did me a favor by "letting me through this time."

Later at the gate, my friend and I were singled out for a retaliatory ID check. Despite an announcement that all passengers will be screened, only my friend I were approached. This left many confused travelers with their IDs out. May wondered how 30 passengers on a small turbo prop could pose a national security threat.

A formal complaint will be filed and submitted to my representatives in Congress. I am more than willing to discuss this with anyone at the TSA who wishes to get all sides of the story. This type of abuse and behavior is reminiscent of those I saw in various Eastern Block countries during the Soviet Era. Chances are this comment will be met with some justification a la Britany Spears.

This is the biggest PUPPY POST on this blog ever. So rather than covering current aviation security news the blog staff wastes time creating a puppy post. Lets have the next post not be a puppy post, oh and how about explaining how the DTW incident was not stopped.

Instead of wasting time with Christmas rhymes, why don't you get back to work.

For example, I'm still trying to get an answer on why I can't carry a bottle of water through airport security, but I can buy a bottle just on the other side of the security checkpoint. How is that bottle that I buy on the other side screened? As far as I can tell, it is not screened at all.

Also, usually when I fly, I see people leaving half-used bottles of liquid in trash cans and on counters on the outside of the security checkpoint. The TSA agents also toss the bottles in a trash can. If the contents are so dangerous, why are they allowed to be disposed in such a cavalier fashion and left to collect in a trash bin in quantities far greater than 3 ounces?

@hblodget New Plane Security Rules: No Electronics, No Getting Up Last Hour, 1 Bag http://bit.ly/5JHony

Is this true? So...electronics are stolen from bags, but we're going to have to put our phones and luggage in our laptops? And spend hours and hours in the airport (thanks to TSA regulations) and then get on a plane for hours and hours and not be able to do any work?

Is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=nytimes a joke? I think it's a little bit of an overreaction. Will the TSA pay me back for the trip I have scheduled in March since this is absolutely insane and makes me not want to fly at all now. Thanks for letting the terrorists win.

Hey - you know what would be cool? Telling us why a terrorist could bomb a plane in the final hour of the flight, but not in the previous, say, three hours. Seriously - how many millions of people are you going to inconvenience with such a cockeyed plan?

Hmm. this harkens back 2 my criticisms of past emergencies: why no emergency update 2 this blog in light of the Northwest incident. 4 that matter, and especially since it was ordinary travelers who subdued the guy, has DHS failed to follow through on promises to give the public a substantive role in terror preparation & response. It's no secret: I've been writing about this 4 8 yrs. & even did a white paper on it under contract from DHS.W. David StephensonStephenson Strategies

Any liquid of any size can be explosive. The bomb experts believe it is not possible to take down an aircraft with liquid explosive smaller than about 3 oz. Combining a bunch of small bottles into one big bottle is very difficult to do without screwing up the explosive mixture.

Unfortunately, the disposal of restricted liquids that are given up by passengers is a major sticking point with the TSOs in the airport. The real balance is the cost differential between the possible threat of an oversized bottle detonating in one of the disposal containers and the extreme cost of disposing the items as true hazardous material.

Airports across the U.S. perform random additional explosive tests on items that passengers have chosen to give up. If a positive result occurs reports must be processed into a national database which allows TSA to track how many items test positive for explosives.

If you talk to any explosive expert, such as military EOD or police department bomb squad officer, you will discover all the “independent” evidence about liquid explosives you desire.

The 3-1-1 signs were created to make the liquid rules easier to remember, not to trick the traveling public. The difference between the posted amount (3 oz.) and the actual amount that is allowed to be carried (3.4 oz.) is only half an ounce. Is it really worth getting upset about especially when everyone knows the difference and the proper size to carry?

The solution to the most recent threat is to keep everyone in their seats for the last hour of a transatlantic flight? Really? Wait until you start hearing from sufferers of Crohne's Disease who are forced to soil themselves when they can't get to the lav.

Of course, if anyone has any nefarious plans to harm the aircraft, passengers or crew, now they'll simply do it at 1:15 out from the airport.

How about you guys just do the job of keeping explosives off planes, and stop punishing the passengers, eh?

Is it really worth getting upset about especially when everyone knows the difference and the proper size to carry?

Are you sure everyone knows the difference? There's not one lone TSO somewhere who looks at the 3-1-1 sign and then seizes a 3.2oz bottle as contraband because "the sign says so"?

TSA shouldn't tell passengers to "just follow the rules on the signs and the website" and then turn around and add "except for the ones which are incorrect".

0.4oz? Yes, it's trivial. But if TSA can't get something as small as the difference between 3.0oz and 100ml correct, what confidence does that give the rest of us that TSA is going to get more complicated issues right?

There also should have been comment cards at the check point. If time permitted (and when traveling, it sometimes doesn't), you could have talked to a supervisor who also could have called a manager. As I work at MSP, I have seen this happen.TSOJoe

Any liquid of any size can be explosive. The bomb experts believe it is not possible to take down an aircraft with liquid explosive smaller than about 3 oz. Combining a bunch of small bottles into one big bottle is very difficult to do without screwing up the explosive mixture.........................Jacob it is being reported in the news that the latest case (the skivvie bomber) had less than 3.4oz of material.

How will your "bomb experts" explain this away?

You say that the difference between 3.0oz and 3.4oz is trivial.

Would you be ok if your doctors used your "trival" rule when giving injections to you or your family members?

How about when pumping gasoline, would you accept .4oz per gallon less than what your paying for?

TSA has an absolute obligation to provide accurate information to the public. Not updating signage to reflect the 100ml (3.4oz) change is not acceptable.

Since the most recent attack was in the last hour of flight, we now have to remain in our seats with empty laps for the last hour of all flights. What is stopping a terrorist from attacking in the FIRST hour of flight, or any hour in between these times. Maybe, we should remain in our seats for the entire flight be it 1 hour or 18 hours and never have anything with us in our seats. Really, what are the restrictions in only the last hour going to solve?

TSO Jacob said...The difference between the posted amount (3 oz.) and the actual amount that is allowed to be carried (3.4 oz.) is only half an ounce.

Actually it is NOT only half an ounce, it is .4 ounce. So now you are saying we can have 3.5 ounce liquids?But seriously, the difference is more than 13% difference. That puts things more into perspective.Can I pay 13% less for my airline tickets? NoCan I round down my income I report to the IRS by 13%? NoThe government should be accurate in telling people about rules. There is no excuse for cutting corners.

Would you be ok if your doctors used your "trival" rule when giving injections to you or your family members?

How about when pumping gasoline, would you accept .4oz per gallon less than what your paying for?"

Ah, RB, you're going true to form. Asking questions that REALLY don't have ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand. Changing the subject when you have nothing to add. And asking questions like a four year old. Only a four year old would listen to the answer, while you just spout off more useless questions.

"The real balance is the cost differential between the possible threat of an oversized bottle detonating in one of the disposal containers and the extreme cost of disposing the items as true hazardous material."--------You put this brilliantly, Jacob. Everything should have a cost/benefit analysis. As in: what is the cost to American businesses by not allowing biz travelers an hour of laptop use, vs the cost of a terror attack, where the odds are currently one per 16 million?

Anonymous said... "You say that the difference between 3.0oz and 3.4oz is trivial.

Would you be ok if your doctors used your "trival" rule when giving injections to you or your family members?

How about when pumping gasoline, would you accept .4oz per gallon less than what your paying for?"

Ah, RB, you're going true to form. Asking questions that REALLY don't have ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand. Changing the subject when you have nothing to add. And asking questions like a four year old. Only a four year old would listen to the answer, while you just spout off more useless questions.

December 28, 2009 9:06 AM

..............Well Anon you seem unable to grasp the point that 3.0oz and 3.4oz is not trivial. I simply used some common examples as a means of comparison.

For example, I'm still trying to get an answer on why I can't carry a bottle of water through airport security, but I can buy a bottle just on the other side of the security checkpoint. How is that bottle that I buy on the other side screened? As far as I can tell, it is not screened at all._________________________________

TSO Jacob said...Any liquid of any size can be explosive. The bomb experts believe it is not possible to take down an aircraft with liquid explosive smaller than about 3 oz. Combining a bunch of small bottles into one big bottle is very difficult to do without screwing up the explosive mixture.

So then why the limit of the 1 quart baggy? If what you say is true, then it should not matter as to how many of the 3.4 oz bottles we bring aboard.

Roses are red. violets are blue.You don't screen air cargo, isn't that true?

Or how about a limerick?

I once was in line at MIDwith pax lined up to IADA plethora of bagsScreened not yet by the nagsRisk factor: the TSA created.

Security is no joking matter. The cute holiday poems are sad. It's time for the TSA to actually get serious, instead of forcing the public to be unwilling participants in this theatrical farce at the airports.

WKC said… “May wondered how 30 passengers on a small turbo prop could pose a national security threat.”

A) When those 30 passengers arrive at their destination they may be getting onto larger planes to continue on to their final destination. 30 passengers on 1 plane now, 1 passenger on 30 different planes later. B) It only takes one bad guy to take down an airplane.C) TSA wants to protect all passengers, not just the ones on large jets. We want to ensure your safety whether you are flying on a little prop or a jumbo jet. D) The size of the airplane is not necessarily the most important factor when it comes to terror. All the bad guys want to do is make you afraid to fly. They can achieve this objective by blowing up small planes as well as big.

Bob, Jacob, and everyone at TSA: Thanks for the Christmas poem and for everything else you do. The poem was a nice break from all the very serious matters (and sometimes droll matters) on the TSA website for an average consumer like me.God bless and keep up the work to help us all be safe in the skies!Thank God for the TSA.

Let’s get the facts straight. Your all spoiled; you think the world should work the way you’d like it to and it does not, FACT, get over it and take the time you’re wasting here and apply it to something you can control like helping the homeless in your state, if you don’t like humans go to an animal shelter. I want, I want, I need, I need…seriously. I just got back from a family vacation, I drove, my two kids had plenty of room in the 7 passenger caravan, heated leather seats, 3 screens of satellite radio/TV, DVD, videogames, reading materials, cooler with food and drinks and what do I hear…I want, I want, I need, I need and yes even the standbys I’m Bored and Are we there yet? Seriously I drove for 22 hrs each way and did not expect this type of behavior out of an 7 and 9 year old with all these amenities, when I was growing up we were lucky to have a blanket and a pillow in the car to sleep with, and hopefully the AC was working. Take a look in the mirror this year and reflect, I personally don’t enjoy going to my doctor for a complete physical but it’s a necessary evil, I can chose to not go and then be surprised when I find out I have some deadly illness , or I can deal with it. If I nagged my doctor, lawyer or anyone else as much as you harass these guys, they would kick me out of their office and tell me to find someone else to groan to. There are laws and regulations pertaining to these topics look them up, if you want more info, go work for them and bring about change. The fact is you want security and be able to fly from A to B successfully, if you’re going to be all touchy feely you’re going to have the knee jerk response that you keep getting, I fly frequently for business and my motto is a rather get there in one piece than several, think about it the next time you fly. TSA enjoys checking your sweaty shoes and bodies, just as much as my doctor enjoys checking my prostate.

I was informed my answer was mind blowing and a risk. As someone who jigs over One hundred,000 kilometers per year upon close to One hundred flights, We fully understand things i am permitted and not permitted. I am aware that particular contact lens options contain peroxide and will result in a positive reading through when tested for explosive device residue. The kind I had wouldn't have triggered such a fake positive. In order to back the actual claim, I've passed via BOS, JFK, EWR, LAX, SJC, SFO, DFW, ORD as well as countless additional airports without having issue.